Ok, lets see if my browser doesn't crash and disappear my post this time.
I think that the burden argument indicts the welfare state instead of the right to procreate. If there wasn't a welfare state the taxpayers wouldn't be burdened and therefore there would be no reason for the state to infringe on the individual's right to procreate.
The burden argument is very problematic. It is a terrible slippery slope as any risky behavior has the potential to create a burden on a welfare state. I recently argued with a friend's wife about the role of the state with regards to the burden issue. We discussed seat belt laws. She thought it was acceptable to force people to wear seat belts because they could get into an accident and be a burden on the taxpayers. Nevermind that the law affects the entirety of the citizenry on the
potential of burden, but it opens the doors for all kinds of intrusions by the state. Where do you draw the line with regards to burden, seat belts, cigarettes, transfat or foie gras? All of these things contain the potential to burden. None of them harm other people, except in the case of cigarettes, but the study's methodology is specific to people the are exposed to large concentrations of secondhand smoke in a confined area for extensive lengths of time not intermittant exposure. That's another discussion, however. I hate to bring up
1984, but eveytime I hear this argument I think of a wallscreen exclaiming that a man of Winston's age should easily be able to touch his toes, and then ordering him to do so.
I think that people often confuse rights and entitlements. You have a right to work, but that does not entitle you to a job. Just as you have the right to procreate, you are not entitled to children. If a child's parents are abusive, society has decided that it is acceptable, for the protection of the children, to remove them from the environment. In the absence of a modern welfare state, the children that could not be supported simply died and were not a burden to the taxpayer, but the parents still maintained the right to procreate regardless.
I just thought of another twist to this argument. There is a direct correlation between the rate of population growth and the infant mortality rate. The higher the infant mortality rate is the more children parents will bear in order to insure that a few survive into adulthood. In the presence of a modern welfare state, infant mortality should be quite low as we see in the Industrialized World. This would ultimately lead to a low birth rate, which is also evident. Much of the First World is below the replacement rate. Maybe then, the burden of unsupported children is only temporary in that it will eventually lead to a lower birth rate and more sustainable numbers.
(why must i make arguments for the welfare state?)
